Fort Worth weekly gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-07-08
THE JUDICIARY AMENDMENT.
IA Important Amendment TO 30 Voted
On Ia August.

GTccnYiie Herald,
OF ecual Importance, g. Iesst 70 the
prohibition amendment, is the proposed
amendment TO the Judiciary article Of our
constitution. The present judiciary sTti-
Gle was q compromise, agreed upon with
much reluctance by the learned iurists
who were members Of the convention
that framed our present organic law.
the creation Of County courts as inter-
mediate tribunals between the Justice
and District courts were ventures
ia this state. Experience has taught
US that while the system msy be q
good one, amendments are necessary to
avoid conflicts and to give the courts
/ power TO determine issues affecting the
rights Of the citizen. For instance, The
Court OF Appeals has appelIsn! iUris-
diCtiOn IF cases appealed from the
County courts, both civil AMI criminal.
The Supreme court has jurisdiction Of
civil cases eppes,ei from the District
courts, and the Court OF Appeals has
Jurisdiction Of au criminal cases ap-
pealed. Judges differ in their
views OF the law, GEd on account
of this, these TWO courts
have seriously COLticted L several i'm
p0rtant rulings in civil cases. For in
stance the Court OF Appeals has decided
that the county or Justice court could not
enforce attachment or OtheT liens on land.
Under this ruling, until Q recent act Of
Ina Legislature cured the objection,
man could lot attach lands on claim Of
less ;hgG $500. The Supreme court held
differently.
Again, The Court Of Appeals decided that
when 9 railroad company or other agency
burned grass or destroyed growing crops
Of the land Of person, he could only
recover the difference Between the value
Of the land before and otter the ourn.
The Supreme court held that the party
could recover the value Of the property
destroyed.
The Court OF Appeals decided q citizen
of this state could not sue g citizen Of
another state in this state WithOU. at
tachiug property. iThe Supreme court
held il could be done. There are many
other questions on which these courts
differ but these instances suffice 70 show
that il is best 10 adopt the judiciary
amendment which gives appellant juris-
dictiOn Of Oil civil cases to the Supreme
court. Besides, the supreme court is
behind with lis work. Under the cQusti-
tuition as il now Is, the court consists
of three Judges In order to eu3-
bic this court TO do the work
il has TO do, the Legislature some siY
years ago created the commission OF sp.
peaIs, q court OF three Judges 81 the same
salary IS the Supreme court, to help it
work OIL IS business. The Supreme
court had al their opinions TO examine.
This taxes much time, The proposed
amendment does away with this auxiliary
court and adds in its stead two more
Judges to the Supreme court, making i've
instead Of six, st the same salary. For
this reason the amendment should ne
adopted. Another reSaOn; There are
vast number of CsseS and controversies
that no court has any right TO determine.
Contests Of stock avg elections, county
seat contests, and in fact all other eleC-
TONS with but few exec pti0ns cannot be de-
term.ned by any court, no matter how
wrong the C2nvsssirg board may nave
been in its decision. Tie action Of the
commissioners court cannot be ap-
peSlGd from, It matters not how much it
may be in error. The proposed amend
meut Cnres these defects in our present
constitution ana makes the district
courts Of general Jurisdiction. County
and justice courts remain as they are
now, lsaFinG ire matter Of their exist
enCe and Jurisdiction entirely VITA the
Legislature. The Legislature also has
the l+tsht TO create such other courts as
the eneeds of growing state may de-
mGnd Take it altogether, the Judiciary
amendment should be adopted
-
~ y -